From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F62C31E5B for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:39:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7211C20B1F for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:39:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="HN7jxVcz" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729647AbfFSAi6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:38:58 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f47.google.com ([209.85.208.47]:33841 "EHLO mail-ed1-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726023AbfFSAi6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:38:58 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f47.google.com with SMTP id s49so24449566edb.1; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 17:38:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bzqQ+p0cZVycGM5xoroio2oFHWU/EFJ7b4KcGZXlaeg=; b=HN7jxVczRQw8BuODliUaJx1krrC5u0bSv6wNlzTeiaqxI5/WxtVswZ3/DAWD3LA5YL Y4gfFvi+vdPHwY/bthNBq0K4X5A4wkbn/CJSKU+yQF80lHT3Ml2rM1UgkGs9mKdS6+ht VHyufg+NObVes7lMGYtjCZKxeMJOMk4tXMNWgWvvSjy71Wq2AEHIByUOIvEz0cBuZ/Xn hl8/zmqnKCTgz4hPtyq1O7QGfbDe+sgnz5pfCJzXH3iX1/1YxGLL1miyo79m1tQDcX75 UeICZSDBK3SsYI9YBBDuXE6F98sbyGg7BrtQoadRSa3hewpRQkIPWgF+Rf69Nxd44/Ua 2Dvg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bzqQ+p0cZVycGM5xoroio2oFHWU/EFJ7b4KcGZXlaeg=; b=bMDrGpGyRinb958rmRD+SfWzQnwkI7kPx0STyP88utqpjuQ2Vx2ckVnMv/JVlZjY0/ rr35q+pYRKXQHByl0qaV+yEpKtfIecCAwoBp8mEdip+3Hvhl9xr+Dt3a6znfwmiX4S2k hiR4chahwlbrDVheyixQVC+7v9+tn3bYyN2+lwTd56oP+HJIwTe+oB8GGdyySEtCxcqz ob/ZUJHUZ8Vbk8oyTQ28I6CaxA8OeMeC5decS0yipGoxI6ro3LVX7WpMejtaA/9kxRmT HGdsJBqUD4+4lxs4GeQftf9fJhgoA8wsFbsIzLO4rgWIrEAZveufpvtQa0ioz5m4ba6L zH9w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVHWTSQAbf9iuuqPJ0SE1dNEk8tCLyuDnAy9qKbpqRK6cH6cSwa njOTMFOIZB358y3p7X/O7OVpBmivYTd8E/62bJM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz2nfPfBq4jE5jWuxHzrHdBZZE1KQ51bus1GR9GIax2909JzFg58fQoGJ5fTXlFX/pPbOunF2yaU9+f9tl+EgY= X-Received: by 2002:a50:9153:: with SMTP id f19mr21543708eda.70.1560904736103; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 17:38:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190618173906.GB3649@kroah.com> <20190618.184409.2227845117139305004.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20190618.184409.2227845117139305004.davem@davemloft.net> From: Willem de Bruijn Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:38:19 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524 To: David Miller Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Naresh Kamboju , Network Development , LKML , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Fred Klassen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:44 PM David Miller wrote: > > From: Willem de Bruijn > Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:58:26 -0400 > > > I see that in similar such cases that use the test harness > > (ksft_test_result_skip) the overall test returns success as long as > > all individual cases return either success or skip. > > > > I think it's preferable to return KSFT_SKIP if any of the cases did so > > (and none returned an error). I'll do that unless anyone objects. > > I guess this is a question of semantics. > > I mean, if you report skip at the top level does that mean that all > sub tests were skipped? People may think so... :) Yes, it's not ideal. Erring on the side of caution? Unlike pass, it is a signal that an admin may or may not choose to act on. I run a selected subset of tests from tools/testing that are all expected to pass, so if one returns skip, I would want to take a closer look.